- Reason
- This high resolution image clearly depicts a Canadian CH-124 Sea King helicopter in flight
- Articles this image appears in
- CH-124 Sea King, Sikorsky Aircraft
- Creator
- U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Brett Dawson
- Support as nominator -- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like that the photographer just managed to get the propeller in at the upper left, balances the shot nicely. Great frozen-motion shot at high resolution. And before anyone else opposes over it, the blurry sections of water are heat/air distortions from the helicopter, not a blurriness of the photo. Staxringold talk contribs 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support It appears the rotorblade to the furthest right appears to be cut off slightly, but other than that very slight issue, a very good picture of a hard to capture clearly subject... Gazhiley ( talk) 10:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - as others -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm against featuring images from external organisations that haven't been significantly enhanced by Wikipedians. It's so pointless. Stevage 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- How does that make sense? This image significantly adds EV in knowing what the thing actually looks like. Why does who took it matter, so long as it's free? Staxringold talk contribs 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nice photo. It has good EV. But I don't see any benefit to our listing it as a featured picture. I've raised this on the talk page in the past.
Stevage
05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- How does raising anything to featured status benefit anything? Featured status is not meant to benefit something, it's a recognition of the highest-level content that improve the encyclopedia, which this is and does. Staxringold talk contribs 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please identify which of the featured picture criteria supports that position? Nick-D ( talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nice photo. It has good EV. But I don't see any benefit to our listing it as a featured picture. I've raised this on the talk page in the past.
Stevage
05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Cut off rotor isn't so much that I oppose it. Also, Staxringold's point above is completely right. FP is about recognition of high value content. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: What's the EV of this, we have approx 150 free Sea King pics.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
09:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a link to at least one better alt. I agree we have a lot of Sea King pictures, but i browsed them a bit and most of them don't compare to that one (for composition or EV reasons). Also, it doesn't seem any of them is an FP. So while I agree we should promote only the best pictures (and that may be more than one for the same subject), your argument is a bit weak without at least one clearly better image. Ksempac ( talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there are only three CH-124 Sea King pictures on Wikipedia, its the SH-3 Sea King that we have a lot of pictures of. The distinction is important.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support- as we have so many of this sort of image, the bar should be high. This isn't perfect, but it's good. Stevage's comment doesn't hold any water- FPC isn't about patting Wikipedians on the back, it's about gathering together some impressive free images that add significantly to our encyclopedia. J Milburn ( talk) 10:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the sea seem blurred around the helicopter ? At first i thought it was maybe due to exhaust gas/turbulation because i noticed near the rotor, but then i saw the same thing on different parts of the vehicle (for example around the front wheel). Is this some poor image editing ???
Ksempac (
talk)
11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't be sure, but I would think it is heat from the engines. Since the helicopter is either taking off or landing, and heat would be pushed straight down by the downwash of the rotor in two columns, one near the back wheel and one near the front (at least, this is how it would look from our angle). - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: Too tight crop. Lycaon ( talk) 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon. Otherwise, I would support this. -- mcshadypl T C 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. While it may be argued that Stevage's reason isn't backed by the criteria, it is fair to hold these type of images to at least as high a standard as Wikipedian generated content (and I would tend to argue a higher standard, though sadly the opposite tends to be the case. Here for example one would presume the US Navy have pretty good regular access to the subject matter, which a Wikipedian would be unlikely to get, so should be able to generate a near 'perfect' shot). In this case I have little doubt most would oppose this if it came from one of our regular Wikipedian photo contributors due to it being too tightly cropped and partially cutoff, yet support it as being from an outside source. Weird. -- jjron ( talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as jjron -- Muhammad (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Reason
- This high resolution image clearly depicts a Canadian CH-124 Sea King helicopter in flight
- Articles this image appears in
- CH-124 Sea King, Sikorsky Aircraft
- Creator
- U.S. Navy photo by Lt. j.g. Brett Dawson
- Support as nominator -- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like that the photographer just managed to get the propeller in at the upper left, balances the shot nicely. Great frozen-motion shot at high resolution. And before anyone else opposes over it, the blurry sections of water are heat/air distortions from the helicopter, not a blurriness of the photo. Staxringold talk contribs 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support It appears the rotorblade to the furthest right appears to be cut off slightly, but other than that very slight issue, a very good picture of a hard to capture clearly subject... Gazhiley ( talk) 10:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - as others -- Childzy ¤ Talk 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm against featuring images from external organisations that haven't been significantly enhanced by Wikipedians. It's so pointless. Stevage 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- How does that make sense? This image significantly adds EV in knowing what the thing actually looks like. Why does who took it matter, so long as it's free? Staxringold talk contribs 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nice photo. It has good EV. But I don't see any benefit to our listing it as a featured picture. I've raised this on the talk page in the past.
Stevage
05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- How does raising anything to featured status benefit anything? Featured status is not meant to benefit something, it's a recognition of the highest-level content that improve the encyclopedia, which this is and does. Staxringold talk contribs 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please identify which of the featured picture criteria supports that position? Nick-D ( talk) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a nice photo. It has good EV. But I don't see any benefit to our listing it as a featured picture. I've raised this on the talk page in the past.
Stevage
05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. Cut off rotor isn't so much that I oppose it. Also, Staxringold's point above is completely right. FP is about recognition of high value content. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 08:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: What's the EV of this, we have approx 150 free Sea King pics.
Ryan4314 (
talk)
09:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide a link to at least one better alt. I agree we have a lot of Sea King pictures, but i browsed them a bit and most of them don't compare to that one (for composition or EV reasons). Also, it doesn't seem any of them is an FP. So while I agree we should promote only the best pictures (and that may be more than one for the same subject), your argument is a bit weak without at least one clearly better image. Ksempac ( talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there are only three CH-124 Sea King pictures on Wikipedia, its the SH-3 Sea King that we have a lot of pictures of. The distinction is important.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support- as we have so many of this sort of image, the bar should be high. This isn't perfect, but it's good. Stevage's comment doesn't hold any water- FPC isn't about patting Wikipedians on the back, it's about gathering together some impressive free images that add significantly to our encyclopedia. J Milburn ( talk) 10:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Why does the sea seem blurred around the helicopter ? At first i thought it was maybe due to exhaust gas/turbulation because i noticed near the rotor, but then i saw the same thing on different parts of the vehicle (for example around the front wheel). Is this some poor image editing ???
Ksempac (
talk)
11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can't be sure, but I would think it is heat from the engines. Since the helicopter is either taking off or landing, and heat would be pushed straight down by the downwash of the rotor in two columns, one near the back wheel and one near the front (at least, this is how it would look from our angle). - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: Too tight crop. Lycaon ( talk) 05:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lycaon. Otherwise, I would support this. -- mcshadypl T C 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. While it may be argued that Stevage's reason isn't backed by the criteria, it is fair to hold these type of images to at least as high a standard as Wikipedian generated content (and I would tend to argue a higher standard, though sadly the opposite tends to be the case. Here for example one would presume the US Navy have pretty good regular access to the subject matter, which a Wikipedian would be unlikely to get, so should be able to generate a near 'perfect' shot). In this case I have little doubt most would oppose this if it came from one of our regular Wikipedian photo contributors due to it being too tightly cropped and partially cutoff, yet support it as being from an outside source. Weird. -- jjron ( talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as jjron -- Muhammad (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted -- Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)